Re: MobileOK review

Charles McCathieNevile schrieb:
> 
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:19:25 +0200, <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Carlos Iglesias schrieb:
>>
>>>> 3 mobileOK Basic Tests
>> [...]
>>> Ideally, tests should provide messages for every fail or warning if we
>>> want them to be useful for tracking reasons. The problem I find here is
>>> that it looks like they have defined PASSES and FAILS as "final states"
>>> that interrupt the algorithm. Note that otherwise all the algorithms 
>>> will
>>> always produce a PASS, as it's always the last instruction.

As a test tool should (according to 2.3.1)

# Continue individual tests as far as is possible
# Carry out as many tests as is reasonable

the tool should collect all the FAILs. E.g. in 3.8 IMAGE_MAPS testing a 
document containing three image maps should result in three FAIL 
messages and not just one (for the first occurence).

>> What is the subject of the test? Is it the whole document (If the 
>> document contains...)? Is it one element (For each element...)?
> 
> Te whiole document.

+ Included Resources (2.3.6) and Included Style Sheet Resources (2.3.7)?

>>>> 3.21 STYLE_SHEETS_USE
>> [...]
>>> My understanding is that allowed properties and values are those 
>>> which are included in the CSS1 grammar.
>>
>> The CSS _grammar_ does not define allowed properties and values. The
>> _vocabulary_ in the specification does.
> 
> Basically it is CSS 1 plus the media type construct from CSS 2.

Should the definition of CSS validity (2.3.9) be split into grammar 
validity (something like wellformedness in XML), which is used in 3.4, 
and vocabulary validity (properties, values, functions, ... defined in 
the specification), which is used in 3.21?
-- 
Johannes Koch
BIKA Web Compliance Center - Fraunhofer FIT
Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany
Phone: +49-2241-142628    Fax: +49-2241-142065

Received on Monday, 18 June 2007 10:13:29 UTC